Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Just for people to shout their opinions and look for others to agree with them.

So you are saying you are an asshole with no point who is shouting your opinion? You are here so you must be?

There is nothing inherent in message boards that make it impossible to have reasonable discussions. Obviously message boards have plenty of people that are not interested in reasonable discussions, but that is saying something different.

This thread wasn't so bad until it was revived for no reason whatsoever.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Originally Posted by Haloti92

So you are saying you are an asshole with no point who is shouting your opinion? You are here so you must be?

There is nothing inherent in message boards that make it impossible to have reasonable discussions. Obviously message boards have plenty of people that are not interested in reasonable discussions, but that is saying something different.

This thread wasn't so bad until it was revived for no reason whatsoever.

Yes. I assume that I'm part of everyone.

And everyone here has a point, but no one wants to concede an inch.

Yes, it would seem unfair that POTUS wouldn't mention the Chris Lane killing (this thread was started several days after the murder) after mentioning the Martin killing, but if we look at the time frame, Obama released a statement on Martin months after the incident. His statement on Lane came less than 2 weeks after the killing, several days after the beginning of this thread.

There is still a point however that the news media did not cover the Lane murder the same way they covered the Martin killing. But if we look at both cases separately, the Lane case is pretty cut and dry. There is no grey area to it. The Martin case however, is/was much more complicated as far as the question of guilt/self defense. Race is a part of the case, but it is entwined with economics as well. The Martin killing occurred in a gated community. The underlying theme to many was that it was a case of a non-black man looking at a young black man and making the decision that he did not belong in that area.

There was also the matter of the outrage in the community. There was plenty of community outrage in the Martin case, which lead to larger national coverage. But the predominate amount of outrage in the Lane case came from Conservative media playing the case against the Martin case; calling out POTUS on his (at the time) lack of comment. I don't think it can be denied that the Martin outrage grew from Trayvon Martin's parents hiring a publicist to get the story of their son's death out there. There was no equivalent on the Lane case. We did not really hear much from Lane's parents because they did not want to make their son's death a part of a larger debate.

Of course, Jackson's "frowned upon" comment was a horrible choice of words and there really is no defending that particular choice of 2 words. It's as simple as that.

At the same time, I get where Akashi was coming from in saying that racial history does play into news coverage, I just think he said it very, very poorly. We cannot deny that as a nation we treated Africans and African-Americans horribly for hundreds of years. Even in 2013, we are no more than 50 years from the Civil Rights movement. That's 50 years of equality (and let's face it, equality didn't begin the moment segregation was deemed illegal) versus several hundred years of oppression. When a black person is killed by a white person, or someone who essentially looks like a white person, the ghosts of those years where we as a nation deemed black people beneath white people echo in our collective consciousness. We are reminded of the days when such a crime was not even considered a crime. We do not fully know what happened on that night since there was only one side to the story, but the decision that Zimmerman was within his rights to kill Martin opens wounds from those hundreds of years. The Martin killing and the question of guilt in the case plays into history more than the Lane killing.

Akashi calling the thread petty was unfortunate. That was the escalation point because that's when things became personal.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Yes. I assume that I'm part of everyone.

And everyone here has a point, but no one wants to concede an inch.

Yes, it would seem unfair that POTUS wouldn't mention the Chris Lane killing (this thread was started several days after the murder) after mentioning the Martin killing, but if we look at the time frame, Obama released a statement on Martin months after the incident. His statement on Lane came less than 2 weeks after the killing, several days after the beginning of this thread.

There is still a point however that the news media did not cover the Lane murder the same way they covered the Martin killing. But if we look at both cases separately, the Lane case is pretty cut and dry. There is no grey area to it. The Martin case however, is/was much more complicated as far as the question of guilt/self defense. Race is a part of the case, but it is entwined with economics as well. The Martin killing occurred in a gated community. The underlying theme to many was that it was a case of a non-black man looking at a young black man and making the decision that he did not belong in that area.

There was also the matter of the outrage in the community. There was plenty of community outrage in the Martin case, which lead to larger national coverage. But the predominate amount of outrage in the Lane case came from Conservative media playing the case against the Martin case; calling out POTUS on his (at the time) lack of comment. I don't think it can be denied that the Martin outrage grew from Trayvon Martin's parents hiring a publicist to get the story of their son's death out there. There was no equivalent on the Lane case. We did not really hear much from Lane's parents because they did not want to make their son's death a part of a larger debate.

Of course, Jackson's "frowned upon" comment was a horrible choice of words and there really is no defending that particular choice of 2 words. It's as simple as that.

At the same time, I get where Akashi was coming from in saying that racial history does play into news coverage, I just think he said it very, very poorly. We cannot deny that as a nation we treated Africans and African-Americans horribly for hundreds of years. Even in 2013, we are no more than 50 years from the Civil Rights movement. That's 50 years of equality (and let's face it, equality didn't begin the moment segregation was deemed illegal) versus several hundred years of oppression. When a black person is killed by a white person, or someone who essentially looks like a white person, the ghosts of those years where we as a nation deemed black people beneath white people echo in our collective consciousness. We are reminded of the days when such a crime was not even considered a crime. We do not fully know what happened on that night since there was only one side to the story, but the decision that Zimmerman was within his rights to kill Martin opens wounds from those hundreds of years. The Martin killing and the question of guilt in the case plays into history more than the Lane killing.

Akashi calling the thread petty was unfortunate. That was the escalation point because that's when things became personal.

But that's all just my asshole opinion.

Your overall opinion/take on the thread makes sense to me.

Though this: "When a black person is killed by a white person, or someone who essentially looks like a white person, the ghosts of those years where we as a nation deemed black people beneath white people echo in our collective consciousness" is a cop out.

There should be some evidence that race played a role in the case (let alone an absence of clear evidence that race did not play any role) before anything "echoes" and especially before the federal government (Holder) and the sychophantic media tries to fabricate the existence of such a role in order advance political agendas. Blacks and whites and anyone with integrity should call this crap out when it happens, not excuse it as "sensible." Which is what people are doing (or attempting to do) in this thread.

In no way, shape, or form does fabricating and inciting racial tensions in cases where race played no role whatsoever help anyone or society. And, and this gets back the Lane case, such race-hustling can hurt and cost lives. There is evidence Lane's murderers were incited by the entirely over-hyped and falsely-covered Martin case. And obviously there were many other documented and ignored cases of post-Martin-verdict violence.

When the threat of blacks being killed by whites (due to race or not) has demonstrably been shown to be less than the threat of whites being killed by blacks (due to race or not), then people who invent and highlight the former while purposefully ignoring the latter have an agenda. And that agenda is not the truth, it isn't helpful, and it is becoming more obviously harmful. As such, these people should be confronted when such tactics are employed.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Your overall opinion/take on the thread makes sense to me.

Though this: "When a black person is killed by a white person, or someone who essentially looks like a white person, the ghosts of those years where we as a nation deemed black people beneath white people echo in our collective consciousness" is a cop out.

There should be some evidence that race played a role in the case (let alone an absence of clear evidence that race did not play any role) before anything "echoes" and especially before the federal government (Holder) and the sychophantic media tries to fabricate the existence of such a role in order advance political agendas. Blacks and whites and anyone with integrity should call this crap out when it happens, not excuse it as "sensible." Which is what people are doing (or attempting to do) in this thread.

In no way, shape, or form does fabricating and inciting racial tensions in cases where race played no role whatsoever help anyone or society. And, and this gets back the Lane case, such race-hustling can hurt and cost lives. There is evidence Lane's murderers were incited by the entirely over-hyped and falsely-covered Martin case. And obviously there were many other documented and ignored cases of post-Martin-verdict violence.

When the threat of blacks being killed by whites due to their race has demonstrably been shown to be less than the threat of whites being killed by blacks due to race, then people who invent and highlight the former while purposefully ignoring the latter have an agenda. And that agenda is not the truth, it isn't helpful, and it is becoming more obviously harmful. As such, these people should be confronted when such tactics are employed.

I fail to see how race played no role whatsoever in the Martin case. Did it come into play in Zimmerman's mind when he was following Martin? I'm inclined to believe that it did not. I believe that Zimmerman had/has a bit of a hero complex and would have followed him regardless of skin color.

But that does not change the fact that the child who was killed was black. And it does not change the fact that the killer was not.

Perception will always be truth in the minds of many. And perception is informed by history. So when a person who is black is killed by someone who looks white, the crime, placed in the context of history, will have race tied to it no matter what the motivations are. The question is where does the discussion go from there?

Where it usually goes is both sides become reactionary. I believe that Sharpton and Jackson tend to go overboard to one side. But then you have people on the other side going just as overboard and so I think it's unfair to call out one side over the other. Personally I don't think a guy like Rush Limbaugh even believes half of what he says, but he says it because in talk radio, enraging people pays the bills.

Placing the blame of the Lane killing on coverage of the Martin case conveniently ignores that there is a two way street going on. Hypocrisy is on both sides of the coin, no matter how you flip it.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

I fail to see how race played no role whatsoever in the Martin case. Did it come into play in Zimmerman's mind when he was following Martin? I'm inclined to believe that it did not. I believe that Zimmerman had/has a bit of a hero complex and would have followed him regardless of skin color.

You fail to see how race played no role, yet you admit you believe it played no role, and have provided no evidence it played any role? That doesn't make much sense. Race played no role according to all available evidence (and what else is there to go by).

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

But that does not change the fact that the child who was killed was black. And it does not change the fact that the killer was not.

Of course it doesn't, but your "facts" are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether blacks are being victimized due to race.

And this is the issue that is the problem. The incessant agenda-driven claims that this is the case despite absolutely no evidence to support it, much evidence to support the reverse being the case, and the obvious fact that it doesn't help to improve race relations.

As for races killing races. Blacks kill whites by far more than the reverse, as I said, and as you ignored. So by your simple conclusion that no racial animosity is needed, for the races of those involved to be relevant, then whites are the ones being victimized these days.

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Perception will always be truth in the minds of many. And perception is informed by history. So when a person who is black is killed by someone who looks white, the crime, placed in the context of history, will have race tied to it no matter what the motivations are. The question is where does the discussion go from there?

That isn't the question at all. Perception may be influenced by history, but it is much more reliant (assuming the person is honest) on reality. And when the media, and race-hucksters present false realities to low-information people, then they are buttressing or creating false perceptions. And the questions are: 1) Why?, 2) Is this good or bad?, 3) If it is bad, why aren't more people calling this out? The answers are easily argued as 1) Self-serving and political agendas, 2) It is bad, 3) Partisan agendas.

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Where it usually goes is both sides become reactionary. I believe that Sharpton and Jackson tend to go overboard to one side. But then you have people on the other side going just as overboard and so I think it's unfair to call out one side over the other. Personally I don't think a guy like Rush Limbaugh even believes half of what he says, but he says it because in talk radio, enraging people pays the bills.

There is no moral equivalence. "Both sides are equally bad" is undeniably false. The two sides are: the dishonest and the honest. Sharpton's and Jackson's raison d'etre is to keep racial conflict going (not solve it). Without it, they lose influence. And I am not nearly concerned by them, as I am the media and the federal government engaging in the despicable race-hustling that these two clowns engage in. People can (and do) ignore Sharpton and Jackson, but the MSM and the government is a different story. The latter have real power to affect the way people think (in this case for the negative).

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Placing the blame of the Lane killing on coverage of the Martin case conveniently ignores that there is a two way street going on. Hypocrisy is on both sides of the coin, no matter how you flip it.

Huh? The perpetrators mentioned the Martin case as motivation and also explicitly admitted they go around knocking out people because they are white. Obviously there were cases of black on white violence after the verdict, where the perpetrators expressed their motivation. Where is the second side of the street? You can't show me one, which is precisely the point of this conversation. The hypocrisy is monumental on one side and virtually non-existent on the other. Again, which is the whole point.

Look up Roderick Scott and then ask yourself why no one knows his name.

Re: If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Chris Lane

It's becoming silly to argue at this point. You see what you want to see. Twist how you want to twist.

It is silly to stick to an argument that cannot stand up to scrutiny or counter-argument, I agree.

As for what I see, I see someone unable or unwilling to defend themselves.

As for what I am "twisting," I don't see anything. Certainly not anything you have pointed out.

My points speak for themselves, as does your inability to address them.

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

If the goal is equality and fairness, the issue should not be the "us vs. them" game that you seem to want to make it.

Are you being serious here? Because the irony is beyond precious!

The goal is equality and fairness. The "us vs. them" is entirely propagated by the people I am calling out and you are defending (actively to some degree but more so by failing to call them out). These same people do NOT treat people equally in terms of their reactions, and THAT is not fair. That you, at this stage in the argument, do not even recognize this (the whole point of the argument) does not bode well for prospects of a meaningful discussion.

I don't want to make anything other than a situation where people do not distort the truth and lie about reality in order to stoke the otherwise-would-be-diminishing flames of racial conflict. Get that straight and stop insinuating otherwise without any evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

If you see a "them" and truly wish for a resolution, you must first empathize to understand their position and move from there.

Another cop out. When the "them" I am seeing are race-baiting scoundrels who intentionally incite a segment of the population in a patently despicable and hypocritical fashion, I will point it out. In fact, any legitimate and lasting resolution requires that this nonsense be pointed out and exposed for what it is. Without such exposure there will never be any resolution.

And I understand their position perfectly well, but thanks. I understand their motives as well. I also understand that their position is indefensible and exacerbates the problem they pretend to want to solve (as I have explained). There is nothing to "empathize" with that would make falsely accusing people of racism where no racism exists a sensible response. Likewise, no amount of empathy justifies the desire to falsely imprison someone without due process just because of the color of their skin.

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

That does not seem to interest you though. So I concede. You're "right" and there is no changing that.

Spare me the empty sanctimony please.

Either defend your points or stop posting. It looks like you are choosing the latter. Fair enough.

It has nothing to do with me at all. It has to do with the arguments being made. There certainly is no changing the "rightness" of any argument without remotely addressing it, that is for sure.